Barack and Hillary's Hope for Terrorists and Change for Israel

If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled
in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you
win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know
yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle---Sun Tzu

Barack Obama, during his speech in Cairo, never once mentioned the
term terrorism--even though he was, geographically speaking, in the
epicenter of Islamic terrorism. His oratory resources were spent on the
historical misrepresentation of the Muslim world and fawning over
Islam, while apologizing for American exceptionalism and
misrepresenting the dominance of Christianity in America. Yet, just
prior to his trip to the Middle East, he did exercise the term
terrorist.

Considering that Obama and the Department of Homeland Security has
rejected the term terrorist, but rather, in its stead, the term
"man-made disaster" will be applied when referring to death and
destruction wreaked by Islamic disaster makers. But the term terrorist
must, within the confines of the Obama administration, be reserved for
the worst of the worst.

In an email exchange between the Treasury Department and Chrysler,
Thomas Lauria, attorney for Chrysler's secured lenders, was called a
terrorist for trying to secure the lawful rights of secured bondholders
of Chrysler during bankruptcy. The terrorist reference in an email
written by Mathew Feldman, a Treasury task force member: "President
doesn't negotiate second rounds...We've protected your management and
board. And now you're telling me to bend over to a terrorist like
Lauria? That's BS."

Hillary Clinton has, once again, validated the fact that the
principles of the left still remain in a state of fluidity for an
as-needed directional change. This past week she strongly alluded that
Israel would be on its own if attacked by Iran. In an interview with
George Stephanopoulos regarding Israel and Iran, Clinton made clear
America's new position on Israel. Note the Clintonesque and nuanced use
of the word "retaliation":

CLINTON: I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it U.S. policy now?

CLINTON: I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have
alliances and understandings with a number of nations. They may not be
formal, as it is with NATO, but I don't think there is any doubt in
anyone's mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran,
there would be retaliation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: By the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part
of what is clear is, we want to avoid a -- a Middle East arms race
which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other
countries in the Middle East, and we want to make clear that there are
consequences and costs.

U. S. foreign policy, in the event our staunchest ally in the Middle
East is attacked by a nuclear Iran, has de-evolved into a wink and a
nod contingency plan with unnamed nations.

This statement, especially from Clinton, who had to beg and grovel
for the Jewish vote in New York to garner enough support to be elected
to the Senate; this after calling for an independent Palestinian state
during her husband's presidency, and the outward adoration and very
public embracing of Yasser Arafat's wife, Suha Arafat. To get elected,
Clinton conveniently became Israel's biggest supporter. During her
presidential campaign, she became the champion of the state of Israel.
She emphatically stated that Iran "will not be permitted to have
nuclear weapons."

After being chosen as Obama's Secretary of State, Clinton, using the
same strategy that helped elect her to the Senate, started performing
her canned pro-Israel speeches, declaring that Obama would be a good
friend of Israel, and Obama would exhaust all measures to prevent Iran
from going nuclear; same speeches she gave in 2000 during her Senate
campaign, she just substituted I for Obama.

Obama has since announced that it would be acceptable for Iran to
have "legitimate aspirations" for nuclear technology, this being an
abrupt reversal of previous U.S. policy of absolute unacceptability of
Iran having even remote access to nuclear technology.

Obama's dereliction and affection for Iran appears to be
boundless--as demonstrated during Ahmadinejad's straightforward
election fraud, and its ensuing chaos and mayhem in the streets of
Iran--by calling the chaos during the election a "robust debate", and
refusing to denounce Ahmadinejad and his fraudulent election. There
does not exist a diplomatic excuse for Obama's apparent support of this
terrorist regime, and for Obama to refer to his lack of denouncement as
"meddling"--while "meddling in Israel's affairs--is unacceptable in the
civilized part of the world. But, rest assured, Obama's response will
likely change and will replicate and undulate according to the mood of
the polls, and his financial donors.

If the current malignant state of Iran had a face, it would be Jimmy
Carter, who is in the Middle East--yet again--being the apologist for
state supported terrorism, and calling for, this time, Obama to remove
Hamas from the terrorist list. Given Obama's tender feelings for a
Hamas controlled Palestine, he may just well side with Jimmy Carter on
this issue.

So between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, it means
a little bit of Hope for terrorists and a whole lot of Change for
Israel.